October 10, 2008

I am a small-government conservative who clings tenaciously and old-fashionedly to the idea that one ought to have balanced budgets. On abortion, gay marriage, et al, I’m libertarian....

But having a first-class temperament and a first-class intellect, President Obama will (I pray, secularly) surely understand that traditional left-politics aren’t going to get us out of this pit we’ve dug for ourselves. If he raises taxes and throws up tariff walls and opens the coffers of the DNC to bribe-money from the special interest groups against whom he has (somewhat disingenuously) railed during the campaign trail, then he will almost certainly reap a whirlwind...

Obama has in him—I think, despite his sometimes airy-fairy “We are the people we have been waiting for” silly rhetoric—the potential to be a good, perhaps even great leader. He is, it seems clear enough, what the historical moment seems to be calling for.

By comparison:

But that was—sigh—then. John McCain has changed.... A once-first class temperament has become irascible and snarly; his positions change, and lack coherence; he makes unrealistic promises, such as balancing the federal budget “by the end of my first term.” Who, really, believes that? Then there was the self-dramatizing and feckless suspension of his campaign over the financial crisis. His ninth-inning attack ads are mean-spirited and pointless. And finally, not to belabor it, there was the Palin nomination. What on earth can he have been thinking?

Buckley has highlighted why some of us think we have a choice only between two bad outcomes and are having to decide which is worse. In my view Buckley is entirely too hopeful that Obama is more like Bill Clinton than Saul Alinsky. I am not so hopeful.

Well, Buckley certainly gets to the heart of the matter. He takes the necessary leap of faith that Obama's liberalism to date won't determine his future leanings; that he is smart enough to turn his back on the "traditional left-politics" that he has embraced thus far in his career.

Oddly, I find myself thinking that often. But I don't know on what basis I can justify this belief. It might just be a dream--a wish your heart makes, to quote Cinderella.

My biggest fear about Obama is not so much that he is going to be as liberal as he says he's going to be. It's that he is going to be weak, like Carter, in the face of the very determined, unironic, tactically fierce and cynical labor and trial lawyer interests who will feel like they installed a Democratic president and a Democratic congress with an overwhelming Democratic majority in order to hand over specific things to them.

The Employee Free Choice Act, a.k.a. "card check," which Obama never mentions, is one of those things. It will reach his desk for signature within 30 days, long before economic stimulus, health care, etc. It's why labor is in the game. There's a lot of money in compulsory dues on the table and they want it -- now.

From the left, you get a far blunter quid pro quo than what business expects from its Republican clients. Conservatives always believe they can change the intellectual culture and persuade people. The left interest groups, no less financially motivated than the right's, assume their hold on power is transitory and that they can't persuade anyone directly as to why they are right, so they take advantage of their brief moments of power to jam through as much of their agenda as the pipelines allow, as quickly as possible, with as little debate as possible.

If Buckley is right, Obama will take a thoroughly objective look at Iran, Iraq, the financial crisis and other issues like global warming. He won't adopt the cant of his party, or even his own campaign. He'll put that great mind to work, and bring us all together. The Pelosi and Reid forces, representing the interests of power, money and little in the way of principle, will try to steamroller him, but Obama will know just how to keep them at bay, while getting his public-spirited agenda through Congress despite them.

I'm reminded of Hemingway: "Isn't it pretty to think so?" Well, it is.

"I'd take cranky old Johnny Mac over Mr. What-the-Hell-Does-He-Stand-For-Anyway and his Stalinesque graphics and jackbooted, glassy eyed followers any day."

I think there are two misconceptions here (And I say this as someone who once supported Obama but has become so disillusioned with him as to be virtually neutral now)I dont think theres going to be much symnpathy for Obama on this thread, so let me play the devil's advocate.1. You might disagree with his policies, but he certainly has plenty of them. The whole 'he doesnt know what he stands for' is one of those stupid memes thats persisted even after Obama fleshed out his policies. If you've heard his speeches, watched the debates, visited his website and still dont know what he's about then- with all due respect- that may say more about you. It's as silly as the 'Mccain is a maverick' meme.2. The notion that Obama's supporters are virtually zombies is another dangerous one. Yes Ive seen some disturbing rock-star like reactions to Obama and I dont like them, but you are implying this is what the average Obama supporter is like and I call bullshit. This is also something I've noticed is used to shout down pro-Obama supporters on other blogs ('Go back and bow to your master'etc)It makes it easier not to engage with them.For me, both candidates have lost a heck of a lot of credibility over the last few months and seeing their decline has been a sad sight.

I'm not sure how you regard Obama more coherent. His positions may not change as much, though they seem to carry a huge fudge factor, but the internal incoherence is pretty startling.

Let's see:

1. Professing a new kind of politics while running the worst of the old kind of machine-style hardball politics.

2. Professing "bringing people together", but practicing a "bringing people together but only when they fully agree with his positions to begin with".

3. Asserting the importance of doing the right thing in Darfur but suggesting engagement via the international community while ignoring that it's that international community that's actually preventing any meaningful action on Darfur.

4. Iraq... Staying committed to a get out at all costs strategy regardless of the facts on the ground and regardless of the impact on the country and the region.

I'm not a fan of John McCain as a leader, though I do recognize he tries to do the right thing even if he's often misguided and not sufficiently appreciative of the Law of Unintended Consequences. Barak Obama, however, hasn't yet demonstrated either that he tries to the right thing, as opposed to the expedient thing that gives him more power, or that there's even a Law of Unintended Consequences in his world.

I don't know, from this stage, I'm seeing Chris Buckley's coming out for Obama being primarily about Sarah Palin.

cait said: "I'd take cranky old Johnny Mac over Mr. What-the-Hell-Does-He-Stand-For-Anyway and his Stalinesque graphics and jackbooted, glassy eyed followers any day."

For every "glassy eyed follower" on the Obama side, there's a thuggish troglodyte on the McCain side (like in my own Wisconsin http://www.slate.com/id/2201951/ ). Neither is the majority on either side. But they do stand out, don't they?

I, too, have been a McCain supporter in the past and found myself saying as late as January that I hoped the Republicans picked him as he seemed the best of the field for all those mavrick-y qualities. He was not an fundamentalist-conservative, and instead seemed to embrace both a sense of fiscal responsibility and a faith that the right regulation could work. Now, however, as Buckley points out, his erratic and brutish behavior overshadows the good side of being a maverick.

I don't know if he's right. He sure strikes a chord with much of what he says about McCain. He sure hasn't been near steady enough in the last days of this election, and certainly through the economic crisis. I don't agree about Sarah Palin, though. And also think he's being very optimistic and perhaps very naive.

No, Chris Buckley is just following in the footprints of Ron Reagan Jr, showing us that not only does the apple sometimes fall very far from the tree, it's also sometimes wormy before it even hits the ground.

There is no excuse for a so-called conservative to vote for Obama. Full stop.

Here's the problem with the Republicans. We now hate each other more than Democrats. The Republican elites like Buckley can't really stand the working class social conservatives (or even non-working class one like me). The Miers nomination taught us that we're way to stoopid to hold a responsible position in the eyes of the folks at The Corner. Palin is a symbol of the social conservatives and Obama's and Buckley's shared Harvard/Yale contempt for her is contempt for us. I've never seen people so angry as the religious right is now. I have never seen such loathing as I see from the "intellectual class". Alas, I fear we have not seen ugly yet. But we will.

No, he isn't right. He hopes that "President Obama will ... surely understand that traditional left-politics aren’t going to get us out of this pit we’ve dug for ourselves." Why is it that people who cannot possibly justify a vote for Obama given their political views offer a rationalization for their vote for Obama, they always claim that Obama will, on assuming office, completely change his patterns of behavior, do things that he has never done, and that he has never shown even the remotest signs of comprehending the need for? How can Buckley ask to be taken seriously -- a fortiori when condescendingly lambasting others for their intellectual integrity -- when he claims that President Obama will surely understand that the traditional left-liberal politics that Senator Obama has never wavered from are not what the country needs?

"There is no excuse for a so-called conservative to vote for Obama. Full stop."

I am concerned that McCain will not stand up to the Democratic Congress. He loves getting along with them. Meanwhile, Obama has some motivation to distinguish himself from them. McCain often seems like a liberal -- an erratic one -- and he skews way left on some things. Why do you want him in there degrading the conservative brand for the next 4 years? Better to let Obama use his brains and sober temperament to figure things out and perhaps be pragmatic, and for 2012, the GOP can try to define and promote real, principled conservatism.

"Professing a new kind of politics while running the worst of the old kind of machine-style hardball politics."

In my opinion, that sounds a lot more like Mccain who has been astonishingly vicious over the last month- now ably backed by the pitbull Palin. Both have been negative- did you seriously envisage a campaign without negativity- but Mccain's 'Obama is a terrorist-loving traitor' meme has been a lot more vicious and sleazy than Obama.

"Staying committed to a get out at all costs strategy regardless of the facts on the ground and regardless of the impact on the country and the region."

When on earth did he say he would pursue a get-out strategy 'regardless of the facts on the ground?' Thats a serious misprepresentation of his position to put it mildly.

Obama certainly has a mind capable of understanding what needs to be done. The problem is that in order for him to do the right things, he will have to have tremendous courage. He has yet to show that he has any, let alone a lot of this trait.

I really hope he rises to the challenge, but if he doesn't we will have another Reagan in 4 years.

Indeed, but I continue to hear people talking about either changing them or abolishing them. They argue that "Change" takes time...I am not making this up. These may be isolated cases, and I hope they are, but I have heard it more than once.

John McCain hasn't exaclty staked his claim to the 'conservative' tag with his positions on immigration, the bailout, and taxes. If you're supporting him as the lesser of two evils you might as well slap a Kerry/Edwards bumper sticker on your car and take a road trip to Eastern Somalia, where taxes and nimby-pimby liberals are nowhere to be found.

"ELites like Buckley and Peggy Noonan really have nothing of their values that they stand to lose under an Obama Presidency.

They can have their choice - and their enormous, insulating wealth. The rest of us conservatives want a better country not a worse one"

This is really silly- You are basically saying 'rich people dont really care about the country so they'll pick anyone. Its the rest of us who can make the right choice' what? Tell you what- lets take the vote away from all the 'elite' and the 'rich'- lets leave it to everyone else seeing as they are much smarter and they are obviously the only ones who want whats best for America eh?

Obama's biggest challenge is going to be to overcome the morally bankrupt and politically childish Democratic leadership in Congress. Obama might even hope that the Republicans retain at least 40 Senators, so he can use them to stop the stupidest ideas.

He's got the brainpower, and with a little luck he will have some good advisers.

Finally, it will be good to have the Democrats unambiguously in charge. They have become adept at placing blame and avoiding responsibility. (Pelosi and Reid, Exhibits A and A-1) Now they will have to govern and be accountable.

No, he's not right. He's given in to the same whirlwind of 'hope' that garnered Obama the nomination. In a time such as this, we need more than 'hope', we need someone who has proven they can be a leader and can make a difficult choice. Obama's ability to break from party leadership on any issue of significance spells doom for this country if the legislature and executive are both controlled by the Democrats. They've had 2 years to try to root out the supposed corruption they were swept into office to deal with, and they've failed miserably.

Christopher Buckley: Son of millionaire yacht guy who served in Army and was CIA agent; mother was a clothes horse. Classically educated at Portsmouth Abbey School. Then Yale. Esquire Mag. Lovely satirist.

John McCain: Son of guy with whole fleet. Miserable student. Post grad work at Hanoi Hilton. Admits to having ghost writer.

--

He should be careful about calling Obama "airy fairy" That's what got Clinton tagged for racism?

The line "I pray, secularly" is so precious. God forbid, Mr. Buckley would actually believe in God. What was the name of that book his father wrote...'God--and who?--at Yale....

No, he is not. He mistakes Barack Obama for Bill Clinton. Bill Clinton has a first-class intellect; there is no evidence I've seen that the same is true of Obama. And the idea that Obama even entertains the thought that leftist politics might not work in any given situation has absolutely no basis in reality. When, ever, have we witnessed Obama questioning leftist politics?

"I'm a small government conservative, so let's give the Presidency to a socialist along with a filibuster-proof Congress and a giant economic crisis that they can all use to trick people into agreeing with policies that will mean the death of American capitalism and liberty and grow the government into an even greater behemoth than it now is." Give me a break.

William F. had a "first-call intellect;" the same cannot be said of his son.

This seems a lot like Dobson's much earlier rejection of McCain, which had almost everything to do with not bowing and scraping right, and less to do with policy.

Given the real differences between the two, choosing Obama over McCain because of personality issues is almost certainly not the real, driving reason but rather the public reason that sounds less... temperamental.

Palladian: ("...apple is rotten before it hits the ground") probably didn't think too much about Chris Buckley's father, either, as W.F. Buckley was not a big fan of the Iraq war, if you recall. The Buckleys seem to believe in a different type of conservatism than what seems to be being espoused by many commenters here.

Which of Peggy Noonan's or Christopher Buckley's professed values and world views would be violated by voting for Obama? None. because they are first waelthy, then Americans. Are all wealthy conservatives that way. No.

But Buckley and Noonan whored themselves and their America-first values to their West Side friends a long, long time ago.

"It frankly amazes me that people have bought so fully into the idea that Obama is an intellectual.

What has he -personally- done that would qualify him for that description?"

While I agree that talk of him being an intellectual has been a tad exaggerated, I'd still say he is one. He was head of the Havard Law Review, wrote two critically-acclaimed and insightful books, won a seat in the senate at a fairly young age, ran for the democratic party as an unknown underdog and beat the mighty Hillary Clinton. He has subsequently held his own in debates against a man with tons more experience than him- John Mccain. You might not like Obama, but the man is clearly bright.

"Which of Peggy Noonan's or Christopher Buckley's professed values and world views would be violated by voting for Obama? None. because they are first waelthy, then Americans."

Well my obvious question is- how do you know this?

"Yeah. Especially since they'd only have to fire Chris Dodd (D) and Barney Frank (D)."

memomachine- I take your point. Its a bit rich for those guys to come out pontificating on the financial crisis and yet they frustrated attempts to regulate Fannie mae and Freddie mac. That said, two years is hardly enough time to judge them an abject failure and even taking those two senators out of the picture would be a drop in the ocean.

You know, somewhere out there there's a blogless conservative predicting Obama's victory, and instead of complaining about it on the internet, he's thinking...

You know what? This is not the end of the world. The party will have a solid four years to re-assess it's values and policy goals. Maybe we'll start listening a bit closer to Cato and Reason folks as opposed to the guys at AEI and the Weekly Standard. Maybe we'll look at the conservative resurgence in Britain and learn a few things from David Cameron.

Not very persuasive, I'm afraid. I know people who take this position, and I think it's a non-starter. It ignores how much harm Obama can do in four years with a supine Congress, and, to the extent that it makes a very dubious assessment of the chances of ejecting Obama after four years, assumes away the carnage that will be left after eight years of unrestrained Democratic control of Washington. And the concept of voting for Obama because one is "concerned that McCain will not stand up to the Democratic Congress" is simply incoherent.

The longer I see people like Buckley, Will and Brooks making these arguments, the less one can assume they've just lost their minds and the more it seems that they're acting as a 5th column.

I am concerned that McCain will not stand up to the Democratic Congress. He loves getting along with them. Meanwhile, Obama has some motivation to distinguish himself from them.

The difference is, the Democratic Congress will not have McCain by the balls. McCain can use his own discretion as to whether and when he gets along with them. He owes them nothing. He'll make his choices based on his own priorities, not theirs. There will be a lot of gridlock, but McCain won't be forced to go along with things he doesn't believe in.

It is a leap of faith to assume Obama, who is still a rookie in the eyes of the deeply cynical leaders of Congress, will have the ability to avoid getting his ass kicked in the horse-trading that will go on.

Remember Jimmy Carter canceling the pork-barrel water projects and then being forced to back down? Or Hillary Clinton, thinking she could run right over the Congressional leadership on health care? It was a Democratic Congress that killed her legislation. Or for that matter, look how weak W was on domestic issues in the face of that boodling Republican Congress. Remember his Social Security reforms? He had both houses, and it was DOA.

We haven't had a president who could run the Congress of his own party since Lyndon Johnson from '65-'67. We've done much better with divided government, as in Reagan's first two years, Clinton's third through fifth years, Ford's term, and, historians will say, W's final two years.

I know its considered sexist or offensive to say this in some circles, but bloody hell Sarah Palin is hot. She spouts an endless amount of gibberish and I find her we-small-towners-are-better-than-you-lot shtick very disturbing, but she's extremely pleasant to the eye.

Simon I will joke around about a lot of silly stuff like God, love, politics and the constitution...but don't you ever joke about the Duke or I will have to track you down and stick your ipso facto up your ergo!

I don't understand judging the tail end of a grueling campaign against McCain's entire record, unless you think it signals a slide into dementia that can only get worse. ( I don't.) I'd prefer someone support Obama because they've managed to find evidence beyond a hunch that he would be effective. But the idea that McCain has suddenly become a raving loon is just silly. Even the Palin pick, while repellent to me, wasn't utterly feckless politically.

As things stand today, the winner of this race is getting the biggest booby-prize of all time anyway.

McCain's $300B pander and the current campaign commercial that accuses Democrats of not regulating enough should give any fiscal conservative pause. McCain looks poised to do to the economy what he did to campaign finance.

Sometimes the easy categories are not so easy. It was Nixon that offered wage-and-price controls and Carter that appointed Paul Volcker to control inflation.

P.J. O'Rourke once wrote that Americans would throw out the bill of rights to save the kids on milk cartons, given the urge. Seems to me that McCain fits this model of behaviour much more than Obama.

Obama has always been a go-along kind of guy. He is also very smart and has (in the past) been able to attrack some very smart economic advisors. The question is whether or not these facts are predictive of his presidency or just comforting trivia.

Given the economic crisis we've stumbled into, and the political grandstanding that befogs it, my take on the election has become increasingly negative.

Which candidate will do the least damage?

I still lean toward McCain, because for all the evidence that he is a meddling fool of a politician, he will still be of the opposite party as Congress. This will be a minimal governor on his acquiescence to horribly bad policy.

What would restrain Obama? He's smart enough, but does he have a backbone?

Buckley claims to believe Obama won't actually stand by what he says when in office. He claims to believe that Obama will realize raising taxes and throwing up tariff walls are bad for the economy and thus not implement them.

Mr. Buckley, Senator Obama’s tax and trade policies are not about revenue or the economy, they are about his sense of “fairness”. He values fairness before revenue or economic growth.

It is a fool’s bet to think Obama will serve more conservatively than he has promised. Nothing in Obama's record suggests there is any substance to Buckley's hope. But, perhaps Buckley knows this already and, despite his claims to the contrary, is simply fine with the expansion of government, the corresponding loss of freedom, and Obama’s view of fairness.

1. "While I agree that talk of him being an intellectual has been a tad exaggerated, I'd still say he is one. "

Based on?

2. "He was head of the Havard Law Review"

And yet he did not write *anything* during that time. As head of the HLR he neither wrote an article nor did he collaborate on one. Which is very unusual since both scholarship *and* being a prolific writer are considered necessary for that position.

3. "wrote two critically-acclaimed and insightful books"

And they weren't *ghost written*?

Can you prove he wrote them? Particularly since he got a large advance for writing a book, and yet had to renege on that contract because he couldn't deliver a book?

4. "won a seat in the senate at a fairly young age"

For the state senate he was successful in knocking out his opposition because he used the $100 million dollars from the Chicago Annenberg Challenge to build his political infrastructure.

For the US Senate it helped that Jack Ryan's *sealed* divorce papers were unsealed by a Democrat federal judge.

Neither examples of intellectual brilliance.

5. "ran for the democratic party as an unknown underdog and beat the mighty Hillary Clinton."

By using that same political machine, built using CAC money, along with liberal doses of manipulation and intimidation solely in **caucus** states.

In states without caucuses he failed miserably.

6. "He has subsequently held his own in debates against a man with tons more experience than him- John Mccain."

How tough is that? McCain has chosen to not hit him on his past associations other than Ayers. A stupid idea at best and criminally idiotic at worst.

And frankly you're being extremely generous in describing Obama's performance as "held his own".

For someone being described as "brilliant" or "intellectual" that performance was pathetic and insipid.

I assure you if he were debating me I'd rip his rhetorical liver out of his thrashing body and eat it right in front of his eyes.

7. "You might not like Obama, but the man is clearly bright"

And I'd have to say that you have not yet *proven* that to be true.

Let me point out the vast number of times Obama has stuck his foot in his mouth when away from prepared speeches and a teleprompter.

A teleprompter that Obama still needs even in the most minor of campaign stops.

You know what? This is not the end of the world. The party will have a solid four years to re-assess it's values and policy goals. Maybe we'll start listening a bit closer to Cato and Reason folks as opposed to the guys at AEI and the Weekly Standard. Maybe we'll look at the conservative resurgence in Britain and learn a few things from David Cameron.

When I'm not thinking "We're screwed: It's just a matter of from which direction, in what position and using what techniques," this is pretty much exactly what I think. It certainly is what I think the Republican party ought to do, assuming they end up on the outs--not that I really think they will. Social conservatism is too tempting, and its social conservatism, as practiced in modern terms, that has diluted the party's focus on what the actual job of the federal government ought to be.

Buckley seems to be making the mistake of making the perfect the enemy of the good (oh that seems to have become so common the phrase has become cliche in no more than a year).

He's going to vote for Obama because the "thinks" he won't be as left wing as he seems to be, because "no smart person could actually think that". With a lock on Congress, I can't imagine he's going to have much pressure to be moderate.

And the attack on Palin...what? Her resume is no more light than the candidate he just endorsed, and unlike Obama, she's just the understudy.

memomachine- eloquent response to my post but its a series of 'prove it' (how the devil can I prove he alone wrote his book?)and 'he used money and a political machine to move up every step of the way'- well obviously he didnt get in there penniless and without any help! But you are suggesting that anyone in his position would have got where he is now with the same money and backing and Im not convinced. Infact, I dont see how his rise to power has been particularily different from other politicians- you're pointing out the help he got as if hes the first one to move on up with a little help. Didnt John Mccain marry a fabulously rich heiress?And incase you havent been keeping up, Mccain HAS hit him on his past associates- havent you seen the TV ads? And what about Palin talking about him palling around with terrorists, hatching his career in a terrorists living room etc (although interestingly the article she quoted downplayed the links between him and Ayers. You'll probably say they are on Obama's side anyway so they coulcnt be fair, so why the devil was Palin using it then?)

And by the way memomachine- Im with you on the fact that he has been suprisingly inactive in the state and US senate but I wouldnt say he's done nothinghttp://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2006/10/barack_obama.html

Obama may be smart but he's exercised some pretty bad judgment, so what good did it do him? "Smart"--the way we define it, with Harvard degrees and the like, is overrated anyway. It's also pretty risky to assume that all of a sudden he'll have a change of heart and stop being a leftist.

With that said, McCain is giving conservatives NO reason to vote for him. He practically seems like his heart isn't in it. At this point it's a matter of voting against Obama, not for McCain.

I can hardly blame anyone who has no confidence in McCain: he has none to offer.

To McCain, I say: Thanks for working so hard to win the primaries, only give up when the finish line's in sight, things are really tough, and people need leadership.

"But you are suggesting that anyone in his position would have got where he is now with the same money and backing and Im not convinced."

Bill Ayers was the one that got funding for the $100 million dollar Chicago Annenberg Challenge. It was also Bill Ayers who put Obama in charge of that money. And it was Obama who then disbursed millions of dollars to activist groups like ACORN.

Sorry but if you've got access to $100 million dollars then building a political machine ain't hard.

Let's have that argument about intellectualism, but in a real way, not a stereotyped "joe sixpack with decisive gut" verses "braniac egghead who doesn't understand us" way.

Here's why I trust Obama. He is an intellectual. He's careful. He thinks through things. He doesn't make rash decisions. He talks to all the people he needs to talk to, listening but choosing his own course. Example: he never acts on today's chic advice -- which gives me indication that he won't, for instance, govern by DOW.

I don't think his approach will result in runaway liberal government because I think he's aware of the folly of going too far, of overreaching. And, most important from someone who is running government: he understands that you have to keep the long term in mind, and therefore that you have to look at tomorrow's unintended consequences of today's actions. That's the single most important component of good, national governance (at least when viewed from a conservative perspective). Any well trained intellectual, on the right or left, understands the dangers of unintended consequences. The strengthening of Iran after we got rid of Saddam is a good example. I'm ranging here, but my point is that if we're going to determine this election on the basis of intellectualism verses middle America identification, let's be honest about what comes with both.

...but don't you ever joke about the Duke or I will have to track you down and stick your ipso facto up your ergo!

YES! You betcha. :)

But seriously, I think Ann has a point about what kind of damage McCain could do to the conservative brand. Gosh, he's scary that way. I know, I know...the damage that Obama could do to the our country is far worse (well, in my view, anyway). But it still is a good point, I think.

Just to be clear...there is no way I'm am voting for anyone other than John McCain. And I am not staying home - I am voting. I'm just trying to understand all of this.

If there are certain standards of behavior that accompany a conservative or libertarian worldview, and I think there are, Obama meets none of them.

Of course, anyone who sees value in praying "secularly" may be too far down the White Rabbit's hole to notice.

The election is not about McCain. It is about Obama. Obama is, at best, a socialist (sorry, Ann), a liar and a corruption enabler. There is nothing in his history to suggest he will ever be anything else. When has he ever objected to or confronted corruption? When has he ever told the truth -- as a reflection of character rather than expedience -- when confronted with a political liability?

If he is elected, the financial crisis may put him off his game for a while. If the economy recovers, so will his base instincts which will contravene the noble expectations of his disciples.

As long as McCain can walk and talk, I will hold my nose, and vote for him. Governor Palin makes it more bearable.

The author of "Thank You for Smoking" claims to be a conservative? On what grounds? That he's William F. Buckley's son? Give me a break. Christopher needs to re-read the entirety of his father's body of work and then profoundly reconsider, not so much his choice in this instance, but his rationale for it.

First, repeating received wisdom enough times--McCain is angry and erratic--does not make it true. I think he doesn't suffer fools gladly and is upset that he cannot get his message through all the media noise, not angry as a general rule. Second, the halt in the campaign gave Palin a chance to rest and saved much-needed money. TV ads on the days in question would have been drowned out by the news on Capitol Hill. McCain planned to go to the debate all along. He just wanted to get under Obama's skin and, since the debate was about foreign policy, he did not need much time to prepare. Obama likes to stick to a schedule/script and when he is thrown off, he does not deal well. Finally, Jim Webb ruled himself out of the VP stakes because he sees through Obama and does not want his own chances ruined. He'd be a much better candidate for the Dems in 2012.

I am concerned that McCain will not stand up to the Democratic Congress. He loves getting along with them. Meanwhile, Obama has some motivation to distinguish himself from them. McCain often seems like a liberal -- an erratic one -- and he skews way left on some things. Why do you want him in there degrading the conservative brand for the next 4 years? Better to let Obama use his brains and sober temperament to figure things out and perhaps be pragmatic, and for 2012, the GOP can try to define and promote real, principled conservatism.

But what in Obama's history leads to this conclusion? When has he bucked party or machine convention on a significant matter? And when have policy positions he has actually helped enact, versus touched on hypothetically, embraced the pragmatic versus what was politically expedient? I really don't see it, but am willing to be convinced.

There's a whole "triumph of hope over experience" vibe to this line of thought. We know a significant number of ways in which McCain is flawed. And we're willing to trust that Obama is not flawed in those ways or in worse ways because we just don't know him as well.

My problem is: based on what we know of his history, I don't see much evidence he's likely to be better. The evidence I've seen so far suggests otherwise.

Ann: "I am concerned that McCain will not stand up to the Democratic Congress. He loves getting along with them."

I would say he loves trying to find a middle ground that both sides can live with.

"Meanwhile, Obama has some motivation to distinguish himself from them."

There is nothing in O's record to suggest that he's anything other than a standard, get-along, go-along politician. Rev. Wright pointed that out a while ago, and he clearly knows his man. Apart from that general observation, the simple fact is that O has never "distinguished himself" from other Dem legislators. Quite the opposite - he has been the model of a straight-party-line kind of guy.

"McCain often seems like a liberal -- an erratic one -- and he skews way left on some things. Why do you want him in there degrading the conservative brand for the next 4 years?"

"Seems" --there's that word that got so much attention in the "Styles section" blog of a day or two ago. So let's deal with reality. McCain is the opposite of a down-the-party-line kind of guy. What drives his train is his soldier's sense of honor. Truth be told, that has sometimes proven to be an unreliable guide to sensible policy. But it's better than O's don't-rock-the-party boat approach to things. As for the "conservative brand," I don't know what it is and couldn't care less what happens to it. I just want the better man, between the two we get to pick from, to win.

"Better to let Obama use his brains and sober temperament to figure things out and perhaps be pragmatic, and for 2012, the GOP can try to define and promote real, principled conservatism."

Any conservative would expect, instead, that "Obama [will] use his brains and sober temperament" just as he has done in the past. By the time a man reaches 47, it is best not to expect him to undergo fundamental change in his outlook or approach to things. At bottom, that's what Ann is imagining here.

In short, I think Ann is selling hope over experience here. There may be some buyers, but they're unlikely to call themselves conservatives.

Y'know, Clinton was, as Democrats go, pretty moderate. But when he got in office, a lot of the people he appointed weren't moderates. In some cases they were out and out lefties. That happened simply because of the crowd he was surrounded by.

By the same token, if McCain is elected, some of the people he puts in place are going to be a bit more stiff backed in the conservatism department than he is. That will ameliorate the damage his moderation will cause. Obama will appoint liberals, who will reverse whatever good he might do if he discovers some notional moderation.

Buckley is just wrong on this count. The Republican's don't deserve to win, but the Democrats don't deserve to beat them.

The key to McCain's failure was not how Obama handled his campaign, but rather how McCain *mishandled* his.

Obama is winny by just maintaining an even, fairly content free campaign - which in contrast makes him seem more *mature*, due to its lack of variation.

It was odd that all those who are now tut-tutting the content free nature of McCain's ads were the same ones who were reveling in Obama's frilly "Change" message 6 months ago. The fact that McCain's ads are pushy and confrontational seems to be the factor that makes them "bad".

Just say nice things - you'll get elected. With a little help from the media...

I cannot imagine the alternative universe that could ever convince me that Obama was anything but an first-class, eliminate private property, and silence my opponents marxist.

Chris' father once said that it was better to be governed by the first 1,000 names in the Boston phone directory than the faculty of Harvard college. Now that Chris has spoken, is the honorary degree and tenured position from Harvard far behind?

Well, it's over. When you've lost Christopher Buckley, you've lost America, at least on the right.

The only reason ever to vote for McCain remains foreign policy. His will be better than Obama's. McCain really went off the rails with shutting down his campaign. What a disaster. He could have won this election by running to the right. Instead, every idea he puts forth is for huge government. He wants amnesty for illegal immigrants. His instincts on economics are all wrong.

Obama is going to be terrible for America because he is really very leftist. He'll raise taxes and regulate, which will hurt the economy. His foreign policy will be a disaster, as Iran and Russia and China and various terrorist enterprises test us, and as Europe takes advantage of us.

If we view Obama's past political alliances as mere cynical manipulation to advance his career and if we view his election policy proposals as just pandering to the electorate, then we can feel good about voting for him for President because of, ah , oh yes, his character.

Daniel, all due respect, everything that follows in your post is one big guess.

How in the world do you know "He doesn't make rash decisions" ?? And this: "Example: he never acts on today's chic advice" is naive. He changes his stance on where and when to pull out of Iraq all the time, based on what will win the election.

who is christoper buckey and why should I listen to him? the day we let characters tell us what we should belive is the day that I will wash my hands of this great country

Professor Althouse: precisely what informs your view that Obama is some kind of intellect? He is a black huey long. He will end up being the adlai stevenson that got elected, and we will be poorer for it.

Please tell me why Obama is an "intellect' and not a product of a corrupt political machine.

I don't really understand the C. Buckley / A. Althouse meme that Obama will break from his party positions after he gets elected.

Trusting the guy who voted with the Democrats 97% of the time to break ranks - the guy who is as much a product of the Chicago Political machine (all the way back to his "Community Organizing" for Project Vote and his legal work for ACORN) as he is a candidate of opportunity (the Democrat who can pontificate on Iraq because he didn't have to vote on Iraq) - makes no sense to me.

I'll admit that I'm really not a 'fan' of John McCain; I'm voting for him because I believe that Barack Obama will do irreparable harm to the causes that I believe in (starting with his replacements for Stevens & Ginsburg), and I don't believe for a minute that he intends to raise taxes or launch a serious offensive in Afghanistan. I see no indication that Obama will veto any spending bill (in the same way that Pres. Bush failed to use the veto pen with the Republican Congress), whereas McCain does have a record of opposing earmarks and wasteful spending.

As for the value of the Republican brand, I find that argument just as unconvincing. To borrow the old baseball adage that "momentum is your next day's starting pitcher," the value of the Republican Brand in 2016 and beyond will be set not by John McCain, but by the accomplishments of the next generation of Republican politicians. Conservatives breaking ranks aren't rejecting George W. Bush, they're rejecting John McCain. The value of the Republican brand is in the hands of politicians like Rep. Paul Ryan, Gov. Jindal, and yes, Gov. Palin.

I would like posers to stop saying, "I'm a conservative, but I'm gonna support Obama." Barack is not conservative - he has lived a life in opposition to conservatism.

Folks support Obama because they agree with his policies and values more than they agree with McCain's policies and values. Well, I suppose there is the race based vote - blacks wanting a symbol of achievement and whites looking for a way to move beyond the race issues. But, by and large, folks support Obama because they agree with him.

I don't mind disagreement. I just want some intellectual honesty. It isn’t honest to claim you’re a conservative while voting for the most left wing Democrat nominee in the history of the party. Period. Hmm… Perhaps they are not being truthful with themselves about their motives?

Don’t give me no whoo-ha in the hay-hay! Stop being a puss and admit what you are! lol

McCain ain’t no paragon of conservative values either, but the gap between conservatives and Obama is like Grand Canyon when compared to the relatively small gap between McCain and conservatives.

I agree that Obama seems to have a first rate temperament (although it's hard to distinguish this from potential weakness).

But a first class intellect? He's a policy major with a law degree and was a civil rights lawyer.

Let's not pretend Obama is Daniel Moynihan. He might be a smart guy, but he doesn't strike me as Bill Clinton or Richard Nixon smart. And he certainly doesn't strike me as any smarter than John McCain.

Jeez, give a guy a Harvard law degree (and it's not like Obama was taking anything but those bullshit easy A seminars on fluff after first year) and everyone thinks he's "brilliant."

Has anyone even read Obama's books? He's hardly has a first-rate intellect.

Danny:"You know, somewhere out there there's a blogless conservative predicting Obama's victory, and instead of complaining about it on the internet, he's thinking...

You know what? This is not the end of the world. The party will have a solid four years to re-assess it's values and policy goals. Maybe we'll start listening a bit closer to Cato and Reason folks as opposed to the guys at AEI and the Weekly Standard. Maybe we'll look at the conservative resurgence in Britain and learn a few things from David Cameron.

I hope these folks exist."

You rang?

I don't identify with the Repubs, but I do consider myself mostly a conservative, and what you say is about where I'm at. I can't vote for Obama, but I'm pretty disillusioned with both and am considering casting a protest vote for whatever Libertarian moron is up this time (why are small-L libertarians not getting a spot on the ticket?) I mean, I'm in MN, so it's not like a Repub vote would count anyway. Obama will lock this state up tighter than a drum.

Besides, reading Fabius Maximus, I've begun to wonder if WHOEVER wins isn't going to be a cat in a roomful of rocking chairs for at least 4 years, and won't have time to be getting up to too much mischief.

I would NOT want to be EITHER of these candidates, and if I was, I'd probably do something purposefully to make the other guy win. And I question the sanity of anybody who WANTS to be president at a time like this.

As a conservative, I'm deeply torn re: my preferred outcome of this race.

Reasons for hoping McCain loses:

1) Amnesty. While both McCain and Obama have said that "comprehensive immigration reform" will be a top priority, it has a significantly better chance of passing under McCain- and if it is going to pass either way, I'd rather the Dems be the ones responsible for it. After 8 years of Bush tarnishing the conservative brand with his open-border policies, a McCain loss will give the GOP the opportunity to finally be on the right side of the immigration issue.

2) I'd like to see Palin as president in 2012 or 2016, and I think there is actually a better chance of that happening if McCain loses. If she is running to succeed McCain, the GOP will have already held the White House for 12-16 straight years. And if McCain serves only one term, the Dem nominee in 2012 would probably be Hillary, depriving Palin of what would otherwise have been her greatest asset: The exitement of a uniquely historical candidacy.

Reasons for hoping McCain wins:

1) The courts. I'd like to see Roe overturned, and there's a good chance Stevens will retire over the next 4 years, maybe Bader-Ginsberg too (altho I don't expect either to retire if McCain wins).

2) The joy of watching Obama's cheerleaders in the MSM try to cope with an Obama defeat.

Right now I come down very narrowly on the side of hoping McCain wins.

Even the New York Times has an article about how the Bush administration sought greater oversight of Fannie Mae/Freddi Mac and how he was fought by the Dems claiming the plan would hurt the ability of poor families to buy homes. Of course, we now see that giving loans to folks that cannot afford them as actually a bad idea for everyone - taxpayers are out money and the poor are without homes.

Please be sure to read the last four paragraphs of the New York Times piece. I think they are quite revealing.

What were Obama's LSAT and law school grades and which courses did he take?

I think it's cool he was elected President of Harvard Law Review but think it's pretty embarrassing he didn't publish a student Note like many Law Review editors.

Obama spouts off about "alternative energy" had hasn't the first clue about what he's talking about. He knows nothing about economics. For example, he complains about supply-side economics but has no explanation for why the recent stimulus package (classic demand side economics) was a failure. If his economic advisers disagree, on what basis will he choose between them. A coin flip?

It's not like we need geniuses to be President. Reagan wasn't one and he was a succesful POTUS. Leadership takes many qualities, but Obama's not a leader. And he's not a first class intellect.

As for my credentials. LSAT 175, Summa at Yale. BA in Physics and Economics from Stanford.

Better to let Obama use his brains and sober temperament to figure things out and perhaps be pragmatic

The only problem with this is that given many opportunities to show the pragmatic side Obama has deferred. Most notably in the Democratic debate in Philidelphia:

MR. GIBSON: You have however said you would favor an increase in the capital gains tax. As a matter of fact, you said on CNBC, and I quote, "I certainly would not go above what existed under Bill Clinton, which was 28 percent." It's now 15 percent. That's almost a doubling if you went to 28 percent. But actually Bill Clinton in 1997 signed legislation that dropped the capital gains tax to 20 percent.

SENATOR OBAMA: Right.

MR. GIBSON: And George Bush has taken it down to 15 percent.

SENATOR OBAMA: Right.

MR. GIBSON: And in each instance, when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased. The government took in more money. And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28 percent, the revenues went down. So why raise it at all, especially given the fact that 100 million people in this country own stock and would be affected?

SENATOR OBAMA: Well, Charlie, what I've said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness. We saw an article today which showed that the top 50 hedge fund managers made $29 billion last year -- $29 billion for 50 individuals. And part of what has happened is that those who are able to work the stock market and amass huge fortunes on capital gains are paying a lower tax rate than their secretaries. That's not fair...

MR. GIBSON: But history shows that when you drop the capital gains tax, the revenues go up.

SENATOR OBAMA: Well, that might happen or it might not.

I fail to see anything more than class envy and preference for "fairness" as he sees it over pragmatism. The final "that might happen or it might not" also shows that he is not using "brains or sober temperament" to decide the issue. The emotional issue of someone making too much means the entire system should be over hauled. Obama is willing to reduce the the government receipts and probably add to the burdens of a portion of 300 billion Americans to get at "the top 50 hedge fund managers".

Ann, I have enjoyed your blog and reading things here. Please don't substitute hope for reason. You may hope that Obama will "perhaps be pragmatic" but the only reason he has done anything pragmatic so far is that it has interfered with his ambition not because of "brains or sober temperament".

..as Buckley points out, his erratic and brutish behavior overshadows the good side of being a maverick.

Despite MSM's latests meme on McCain's "erratic and brutish behavior", I haven't seen any evidence. Maverick-like stunts, like dropping out of the campaign for a day or two to go back to the Senate, sure. Calling Obama on his lying about the scope of the Ayers relationship? Better late than never. Selection of Palin? Motivates the social conservatives, brings more women over to his side, some from Hillary's base. Smart politics - securing the base and allowing himself unfettered ability to talk up his own bi-partisionship.

Anyone who sizes this up as "erratic and brutish" is either believing everything they read in MSM (surely, not Buckley!) or looking for excuses. They never seriously considered voting for McCain.

Michael said - Just because someone considers themselves t be conservative or liberal doesn't mean they can't puts it aside and vote their conscious.

If they believe that the policies and values of Obama’s are better for the future of America then McCain’s, then no. They are no longer conservative. Heck, it is tough to make the case McCain is a conservative, but he is a great deal closer to it than Obama. If folks think Obama’s plans are good ideas then they are on the left.

Certain ideas and values are described as being on the left – socialist policies, bigger government, reduced personal responsibility, etc…

Certain ideas and values are described as being part of the right – limited government, reduced spending, lower taxes, more personal responsibility, etc..

If that isn’t the case then words have no meaning and chicken salad with rocket and tubing in fingernail attack. - Ouch, I think I hurt myself with that joke. lol

If you’re a moderate, fine – admit you’re a moderate. If you’re a liberal, fine – admit you’re a liberal, but don’t try to claim you’re a conservative while supporting liberal or leftist ideals.

There is no shame in admitting what you are. I just want folks to be honest – with themselves at the very least. It is silly to think a person that supports socialism and other leftist ideals are conservative.

Certain ideas and values are described as being part of the right – limited government, reduced spending, lower taxes, more personal responsibility, etc..

That was the theory, at one time anyway. But it's quite hard not to laugh out loud upon reading that list and trying to tick off the items in terms off what's been going on in the aughts. Limited government? NO WAY. Reduced spending? NO WAY. Lower taxes ... hmm, maybe so, but then there's been so much profligacy in other areas as offset (and taxes have gone up on many state and local levels, even with Republicans in charge). More personal responsibility? No, not really. And there's been a desire and willingness to do a WHOLE lot of meddling in individual lives. Libertarian this administration decidedly has not been!

Etc.

Certain ideas and values are described as being part of the right – limited government, reduced spending, lower taxes, more personal responsibility, etc.

Nope, I sure wouldn't assume that, not anymore, not practically speaking and in the event, based on what I've been seeing. It's mostly lip service.

Michael wrote: "host: 'Guaranteed the US Military will shrivel under Obama. It's inevitable.'

Based on what?"

Try this:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rb6EE3C7uWE

Michael wrote: "Donn - Ever hear of the Keating Five?"

I've heard of it. I was asked to be a character witness before the Senate Ethics Committee for one of the Democrats who said McCain was only included as a "token Republican."

Michael obviously knows nothing about it. The Committee's legal adviser recommended that McCain not be included and exonerated him.

Despite that, McCain spent years apologizing for the insignificant role he played in the matter. That distinguishes him from Obama, who never apologizes and lies about every political disadvantage that comes his way.

So Michael, do you have a clue about any of the things you go on about here? (This is rhetorical, Your answer would not be believable.)

Christopher Buckley would be a disappointment to his father -- who was an intellectual, but not an effete country-club conservative.

Little Buckley apparently favors Obama because he has a Harvard diploma...and little else. McCain is unsteady because he changes his mind on issues; so Buckley hopes that Obama's Harvard intellect will cause him to change his mind on issues. This won't make Obama unsteady -- it will make him a "great leader".

Buckley's father would have punched the little bastard in the nose, had he read this. And his open contempt for Palin is just pure, unadulterated snobbery. What an asshole.

Michael, you're going to get everything that you want in this election: A far-left socialist POTUS, with filibuster-proof majorities in the congress, and a slobbering press to praise everything that they do. And our enemies will be emboldened, and our economy and international stature degraded; and one morning I'll wake up to see a second sunrise, from the west, as a mushroom cloud rises over Chicago.

If the intertubes are still working, I'll drop by here to comment with my congratulations, Michael.

Do you remember what Spain did when threatened by Al Quaeda? They elected left-wing passivists. Do you remember what happened next? They were attacked. I know it's not very sophisticated to speak of Obama's name and Muslim heritage; but our enemies are not too terribly sophisticated. What message do you suppose this election will send to them? And what reason will they have to fear us, when our economy has been Obama'd back into the late 1970s, and our military has been castrated?

Thank you, Pastafarian, for reminding me that I'm voting for someone - not against someone else. And the man I'm voting for, I believe, understands our enemies and will not be waivering in this regard. There will be no having tea with terrorists.

Michael -- in your very extensive 20 years of business cycles, the democrats are represented by 8 years of Clinton rule -- during which Clinton benefited from a peace dividend, the end of the Cold War, ushered in by Ronald Reagan; and the tech boom.

We're still paying for what little Clinton did actually accomplish -- it was his reduction in intelligence budget and his limp-wristed foreign policy that led directly to 9-11. It was his changes to lending policy and Fanny and Freddie that led to the current shit-storm.

Take a longer time frame for your comparative study, Einstein. And consider which of these quantities might be lagging indicators, whose movement comes years after the impetus.

Michael said - Joe, I'm afraid if, at this point, you're still defending the Bush administration's policies...and of course, they're not only applicable to the "current economic crisis,"

I’m sorry Michael, you can’t get away with making claim, as in your 4:21pm post, without backing it up. You attacked BJK for not having “anything factual” to back up his thesis – where are your facts? Please explain how Bush caused the problems you described. I have posted links to articles explaining how the Dems are in large part responsible for the current situation by opposed additional oversight of Fanny and Freddie while Bush and other Repubs supported it. You have dismissed my evidence without consideration and without any revealing any evidence to support your claims.

You can convince me that you are correct, but you must at least make an attempt. I asked for you to explain because I really wanted to know. By your earlier statement, you appeared to know. After all, it seems odd to be able to find the guilty party unless you have evidence. If it as obvious as you claimed, then the evidence should be easy to produce.

Has Bush made mistakes, has he done things I don’t like, sure. The list is long and terrible, but I value truth over my politics and it is not truthful to blame the current credit/economic problems on Bush. If you cannot point to how Bush is responsible then you appear to be just spouting talking points and showing a blatant disregard for the truth.

Well, I've read through Buckley's explanation twice, and it didn't make any sense to me either time. He seems to be relying on hope that Obama will, upon election, ignore everything he's said and done to date and lead as a moderate and non-partisan President. I can certainly identify with HOPING that will happen, but there's no rational reason to expect it.

Buckley is hoping that Obama abandons his entire socialist body of work, and he's basing this hope on the belief that Obama's just too darned smart to be a socialist, because Obama went to Harvard. (Of course, he got into Harvard partly because his father went there, and partly because of his pigmentation; and once in Harvard, my cat could excel -- their average graduating GPA is something like 3.5. Give me a break.)

Hey Buckley -- how's this for an idea? If you're looking for a candidate that might not govern as a socialist, how about if you choose the candidate farther to the right? For an intellectual, this Buckley appears to be dumber than a stump.

Host with the Most said... If you are concerned about your pocket book and your material well-being, you are likely to vote Obama.

If you truly want the United States to have it's best shot in this world at remaining secure and safe, then it's a no-brainer.

Host with the Most ignores that the spectre of economic destruction, loss of half American's life savings, and loss of the future for their kids - overrides non-extistential security threats where a small enemy might once gain kill a small number of Americans.

And ignores that a nation in economic collapse cannot support a strong military and has to end it's security goals outide it's borders, for the most part.

Refer to the entity once known as the Soviet Union.

**********************E.D. Kain said... Buckley's made the right choice as sad as it may seem. But it's time the Conservatives reevaluated what it is they're all about. It's time to "go into the wilderness" not the White House.

Agreed.Right now the Republican ticket is headed by an old man with no coherence or vision, running on "biography and character". Who shifts views daily with the fecklessness he showed in the Senate where he backstabbed regularly on personal whim or took on pet obsessions like carbon-cap trade then added drill, drill, drill (his only winning theme).

Like George Dubya Bush, I have no doubt Mccain has a strong inner moral compass. That isn't enough. It was adequate to allow him to defeat the far smarter and abler Romney, much as Obama used the race card to brand Hillary backers as racist and the caucus system to white guilt trip and intimidate Dems into his pocket. But we need better in the White House than another guy with no curiosity, no vision, and saying with high conviction "how he is a fighter".

We should also best avoid another Lifetime Senator who has a bad case of verbal Senatoritis:

"My friends! My friends! I'll fight for you. Just like my dear friends Teddy and Joe and John Kerry fight for their side"

As for the Wilderness, the Republicans deserve a good stint out there. Supply-side, government evil, dereg wonderful, and Open Borders globalism is good have all outlived their times. Same with 40 years of the same wedge issues they say they want to resolve but never did. And voodoo economics. And endless wars to spread democracy at the point of a bayonet and to keep "Our Special Friend" safe in it's nuclear WMD monopoly and Settlements..

The Wilderness is a great place to revisit being the party of the Rich, religious intolerance, anti-abortion fanaticism, betrayal of the middle class, mindless free trade dogma. They pissed away their 1994 Republican Revolution and 12 years of control.

The Democrats have benefitted from their own trips into the stony, parched wasteland. Republicans did after the Goldwater and Watergate debacles.*****************freeman hunt - No, he is not. He mistakes Barack Obama for Bill Clinton. Bill Clinton has a first-class intellect; there is no evidence I've seen that the same is true of Obama.

I disagree. While I am fairly sure that Obama is no where near the brainpower of a Bill Clinton, a Mitt Romney - he appears to be smart enough. His supporters may overrate his intelligence with the fact he never did any published law work or the fact that his Editor, Law Review was in fact more a social award than one on his merit as a law student...but Obama is a deeply insightful person on his surroundings and the people around him. He has excelled at working with powerful people, synthesizing, balancing disparate views between the groups, getting them aligned with him despite their differences, and so advancing his own position.

That's the sort of stuff Eisenhower and FDR did so well.

McCain is NOT smart enough. He does not work well with others. He is a "my way or the highway" type of stubborn fighter jock who "thinks with his gut" - very, very much like Dubya.***********************Marc Percich - Chris' father once said that it was better to be governed by the first 1,000 names in the Boston phone directory than the faculty of Harvard college. Now that Chris has spoken, is the honorary degree and tenured position from Harvard far behind?

Conservatives and libertarians love that quote, but like the Ben Franklin quote on liberty and security, completely miss the context and get what Franklin or Bill Buckley meant 180 Degrees wrong.

Buckley was saying that being run by Harvard Dons would be bad. Even worse than by the first 100 or 1,000 names in the Boston phone directory. He was not endorsing the idea of Everymen (or every Palin) as the Best Rulers. Well-educated leaders tempered and tested in the real world, preferably after a Yale education. Just not those ensconced in academia. The thought of the 1st 100 or 1,000 names of the Boston phone directory actually running the show would curl WFB's patrician lips in disgust - As he clarified matters his quote, on being asked about it, more than once..

Note - I don't dislike Palin, and hope that she has a good future as McCain goes back to being semi-loathed by Republicans and happy to be back with his "dear, dear Senate friends!"It's that right now, she is not ready for primetime and clearly needs more seasoning and knowledge. Nor is she now "Our Republican Candidate" for 2012 simply because the Great McCain elected to pick her.If she runs in 2012, she will have to demonstrate she had the time between 5 kids and day-to-day Governor chores to demonstrate executive leadership and seriously bone up in national and international issues.Much as Fundies love her for being a Madonna to a Downs baby, that means she has to find the time to leave the kid and the other young-uns - and instead put in the time read and understand the basics of economics beyond "More good old Reagan, you betcha!" and ME matters beyond spouting a slogan to "Never 2nd-guess what Israel wants".

Michael -- I never said that all bad things in the world flow from Clinton -- but some certainly do. Consider the financial crisis:

The current financial crisis was caused by a series of blunders, started by Clinton and continued by Frank and Dodd, that made FM and fm into affirmative-action tools to ensure that anyone, regardless of income or credit rating, could get not just a house, but a really nice one.

Obama actually sued S&Ls to force them to give loans to people that couldn't afford them -- the S&Ls were trying to skirt Clinton's insane regulations. Bastards.

Bush and McCain both tried to reform FM and fm, and were blocked by Dodd, Frank, et al.

As a result, money was artificially pumped into the housing market, and this caused a record spike in prices...a bubble, if you will. When this bubble inevitably burst, banks (and other financial institutions that had purchased the paper on these loans) were left holding unsecured or undersecured debts. Millions of mortgages for $200,000 on houses that were now worth $100,000.

Why would electing Obama, a man that's been in league with these idiot Democrats since day one, that actually fought for these loans with ACORN, that would love to nationalize not just the financial sector but also manufacturing and agriculture, actually help the current situation?

But then helping us out of this mess really isn't the goal, is it? The deeper the better -- less greenhouse emissions, after all, when we're all on bicycles.

Cedarford -- sometimes I worry that my comments are too long, but then you post one and make me feel much better about my own. Thanks for that.

You seem to be confusing the office of POTUS with "Jeopardy contestant." If we were electing someone to appear on Jeopardy on our behalf, then I'd focus on intelligence. We're not. Jimmy Carter was a nuclear engineer, and was extremely intelligent. And he was a disaster as a president.

In fact, it appears as though intelligence and presidential success might be inversely related. Reagan was, by many accounts, dumber than a stump (I believe that this was the exact phrase used by Hitchens in his scathing eulogy to Reagan).

I'll take Reagan over Carter any day, Cedarford. I'd imagine you're pretty conflicted about this comparison -- as a conservative, you'd naturally prefer Reagan, but as an antisemite, you're drawn to Carter.

"The fox, as has been pointed out by more than one philosopher, knows many small things, whereas the hedgehog knows one big thing. Ronald Reagan was neither a fox nor a hedgehog. He was as dumb as a stump."

McCain is a hedgehog. Shit, he even looks and moves like one. And if they could talk, they'd probably have that nasal, lisping, nasty little voice.

I'll take a hedgehog over a fox for POTUS, particularly at a time like this.

"But having a first-class temperament and a first-class intellect, President Obama will (I pray, secularly) surely understand that traditional left-politics aren’t going to get us out of this pit we’ve dug for ourselves."

SIGH.

I remember when I thought that George Bush would have a Reagenesque second term as he was able to let his true Conservative nature out too.

Michael wrote: "elHombre - I know all about the Keating Five, and I also know McCain was in it up to his asshole."

Speaking of assholes, Michael, you evidently don't know yours from a hot rock.

"This was perhaps the first time the recommendation of a special counsel not to charge a senator was rejected. This was pure politics as the Democrats on the committee did not want to cut McCain loose so that only Democrats would remain in the proceedings. If Senator McCain was not going to be cut loose, in retaliation the Republicans were going to keep Senator Glenn in the proceedings. McCain was the victim of politics ...." -- Democratic Keating Investigation Counsel Robert Bennett

The final Committee report stated: "[McCain's] actions were not improper nor attended with gross negligence....Senator McCain has violated no law of the United States or specific Rule of the United States Senate."

Michael wrote: "The bullshit argument that Obama is going to dismantle the military is just another right wing talking point...."

Watch the video, Michael. It is Obama speaking about defense cuts.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rb6EE3C7uWE

Hilton Kramer, the anti-communist journalist once described the Stalinist mind as: "impervious alike to documentary evidence and moral discrimination."

For people like Buckley it's just plain easier and cool to vote for Obama. Plus, you will be more popular and maybe get your picture in Vanity Fair. Everyone will comment on your bravery. Cocktail parties will be fun again...

1) "Politician" Obama, who, on Day One, will constitute his re-election committee, and decide that if he does just two things successfully (pull the economy out of its nose-dive, and wind down the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan), he'll be re-elected in 2012 with 400+ EVs.

2) "Saul Alinsky" Obama, who will unleash his inner socialist self, and nominate William Ayers as Secretary of Education.

3) "Conservative Soul" Obama, who will struggle with every executive decision, not wanting to offend anyone--and end up getting rolled by Pelosi and Reid.